Talk:Browncoat

'Verse

From the article: "In the Firefly universe (or, as they call it, "The 'Verse") ..." Who are "they"? Haakon 17:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The people who live in the 'verse, of course.  :-)

Actually, this is a good question, pointing out a fine distinction that should be made in the article. Just as Browncoat has different meanings inside and outside the show, 'verse does as well. Within the show, it's merely slang for "universe", often used as a colloquialism for "known space". Outside the show, it refers to the fictional world of Firefly and Serenity, the main SF branch of the Whedonverse. With this distinction, the line quoted from the article above is confounding the two uses, and should be changed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins as a fan term

This seems like as good a place as any, so I may as well ask... does anybody know who coined the term 'Browncoat' as a term for Firefly fans? I think doing some digging and addressing that might be good for the article. Maybe it's just me, but the quote from Joss Whedon almost implies that he came up with it, y'know? Not that it's a bad quote or anything, but I think this is an issue at least worth asking questions about.--MythicFox 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

it was actually started by the fans-- am digging up sources now -- plange 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, take your time. I figure it was started by the fans. What I mean is that I'm curious as to where the term originated, whether it was a particular message board or what.--MythicFox 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it added same night, sorry, forgot to update here ;-) plange 13:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi JeffG! I just saw you reverted an article I worked on last night and have to say I was surprised you labeled it as "fannish" -- I was actually trying to change the tone to not be fannish so we could get that "tone" tag off. Wasn't sure why you said the headings were more in keeping with MOS? I'm new, so if you could point me to the place in it that I violated that would be great. I'm learning :-)

Also, I was actually trying to make the headlines more clear that there were two connotations, per the last line of the opening graph and wanted to also clarify with this opening of the first heading section "The initial connotation of the term 'Browncoats' described characters in the Firefly universe. It was slang used within the show for the Independent Faction" -- thought this more accurately described them since this "In the Firefly universe, Browncoats were soldiers who fought for the Independents" makes it sound like it was a subgroup of the Independent faction instead of a slang term for the Independents and I wanted to also clarify that it was slang used within the show, not slang used by people who watched it. What do you think? -- plange 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uncapping the headings (which I just did) is in-line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). As a rule of thumb, if it isn't the first word and it isn't a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized. EVula 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! What about the headings I'd changed to initially? (Besides the uncapping?) -- plange 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer about my meaning. For the headings, I re-read the intro sentence:

It has two connotations, one within the original show, and one among the show's fans.

I felt the new headings, "original meaning" and "second meaning", and the use of the verbiage

The initial connotation of the term 'Browncoats' described characters in the Firefly universe. It was slang used within the show…

rather than the more concise

In the Firefly universe, Browncoats were soldiers who fought…

to be needlessly repetitive. The intro, after all, is only 2 sentences and immediately preceded the paragraph in question. The reader would expect the first heading would refer to the within-the-show connontation and the second the fan connotation, so "fictional meaning" and "fan term" would provide a little variety in vocabulary while confirming the expectation. The opening phrase "within the Firefly universe" firmly and concisely establishes, per Wikipedia guidelines on fictional topics, that we are talking about fiction, thus avoiding the fannish aspect without overburdening a statement about the story. (Uh-oh — I'm beginning to channel my high-school English teachers. ☺) None of these elements are part of WP:MOS, as far as I know — just the heading case fixes. But edit summaries are brief and I was in a hurry. My bad. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Cool, okay, how about this:

In the Firefly universe, Browncoats is slang for the Independent Faction -- plange 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a variation?

In the Firefly universe, "Browncoat" is the slang term for a member of the Independent Faction, which lost to the Alliance in the Unification War.

It blends your sentence into the current text and avoids the correct but somewhat jarring use of the phrase "'Browncoats' is". It also properly quotes a term, like the second section does (and the intro should), and bolds it as an initial use of the article title in a particular connotation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me, thanks! (was going to add the quotes, bolding, internal links and rest of sentence of course, was just working on wording)... plange

Flag

ok i have one question, i've seen all the firefly episodes, and i never once saw the independance flag. so how do we know that that is the actual flag besides it's here. i just got kinda confused about that if you can clear it up for me i'd be thankful

peace-Three ways round 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The same. I don't dispute the {{PD-self}} of the image; but what legitimacy within the 'verse do we have? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

i did a quick image serch on google typeing in quite a few firefly related subjects and flag and couldn't come up with anything remotely simalar to that. let me know if we can find out who put it there and where they found it.

peace-Three ways round 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help, I've seen the flag used and posted on several firefly related pages. 71.255.81.144 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

could you tell us at least one of the sites' addresses. We need to have proof to be allowed to keep the flag up, and one of those websites could be used as a source/refrence. and we could use it pretty soon because the flag was nominated for deletion.

thanx

peace-Three ways round 15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion (discussion), but there's no reasonable rationale for it to be deleted; at most, it should be removed from the two mainspace articles it is used in. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree comepletely. I'm gonna go look to see if i can find some of these websites the person above was talking about. Also like i said in the discussion you mentioned above maybe changeing the caption to someting more talking about the 'Browncoat fans', and less about the TV Browncoats might help please some more people.

peace-Threewaysround 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey i did a google image search for Browncoats and came up with a few hits. Only theres a catch it's a triangle, not a rectangle like the one on the page. if you Google image search ' Browncoats Triangle ' you can get a good look at a patch of it. Also Normal google searching ' Browncoats Triangle ' i found a bunch of 'official' T-Shirts and other paraphineilia with the flag (again in a triangle) on it. So i'm thinking that my idea above, about changing the caption to "the official Flag of the Browncoat Fan nation" Will probibly have more weight now. Any thoughts??

peace-Threewaysround 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The triangular flag can be seen on Mal's arm in Serenity (the pilot). Another note is that the star in the logo should have the point facing upwards. So basically the triangle is facing downwards and the star is facing upwards. Skysong 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Flan" quote

The version on the Browncoat page conflicts markedly with the one on Wikiquote. A Google search turns up no support for the version on this page, and only three hits outside of Wikiquote itself for the construction on that site. With that little support, I'm loath to change either of the quotes, but obviously one (or both!) is wrong. Anybody know which? ShaleZero 07:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of fan term: As far as I can tell, it was me

I've added a link to the old official Firefly board where I and poster Mother Magi first suggested the term "Brown Coats" be used for fans on October 4, 2002, predating the other cited links in this article, and predating other posts on the official board. Believe me, as my one super-lame-claim-to-fame, I have dug through that board looking for any earlier post making this suggestion, but I have yet to find one. Kelly began using the term after I had, but I don't think her old blog posts are archived to confirm it. If you do find a post predating mine please correct this page -- and also please inform me. I wouldn't want to go on living a lie, if lie it be. --Boradis 19:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done the Impossible

Was thinking we should do a section here on this DVD, what do you think? --plange 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the deletion discussion

My support was conditioned on the removal of all conventions and other fancruft, which was agreed to by other reviewers of the article. I'm going to remove it now, though I'm sure it will be back. But if it doesn't stay gone, I'll be happy to nominate this page for deletion again. --Boradis 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's now all gone -- the list of fan events and the linkspam to fan sites -- all of which was in clear violation of WP:NOT. Please do not replace it. -- Boradis 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Browncoat Wikia

User Hiding has added back in an external link to Wikia, stating that it was allowable under WP:EL. Checking that site, I see that it violates several of the "Links Normally to be Avoided", specifically the following:

4) Links mainly intended to promote a website.
11) Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
13) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

No. 11 is particularly pertinent, because this Browncoat Wiki states clearly that it is intended as a social networking hub for fans of the show. The following is taken from the site's front page:

This wiki is a collaborative, living archive of Browncoat culture (fans of the sci-fi series Firefly and the movie Serenity), including activities, regional Browncoat organizations, charity events, conventions, meetups, projects, etc.

Therefore, I am removing the link. --Boradis 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are wrong in your application of the guidance, but I think it is not worth edit warring over. I prefer to take the whole of WP:EL into consideration, and on balance I think the one link is justified as per the one exception right at the top of the links to avoid section that was created for these circumstances: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid. I'll let other people chip in and respect what ever consensus develops. Hiding T 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've added a dmoz link per WP:EL, a long standing practise which has been guided at WP:EL as long as the page has existed. Hiding T 09:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Forum links

Forums are not considered reliable sources. They were being used to verify the following claims:

1)The nickname for fans of the Firefly series was floated initially on the Official Firefly Forum on 4th October 2002

2)The nickname spread to other fansites from the forum

3)The nickname was adopted by Joss Whedon

I have removed this information until appropriate sources can be found. [[Guest9999 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Very well. As there are no reliable sources that explain this, the information dies now. If this is a shot at me, so be it. --Boradis 08:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:External links does not apply in this case, as the page itself makes quite clear. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Hiding T 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - forums do not have such a reputation. Essentially I could say my personal website was the source of the term and then link to a post reputedly from 2001. Forum are not usually considered reliable sources and I do not see why they should be in this case. [[Guest9999 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Sorry, can we be clear here. Are you suggesting the sources do not verify the information that is in the article? The article already relies upon very reliable sources for the existence of the term, thus meeting the section of WP:V you quote. The section that is relevant here is "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves". You are misunderstanding the broad thrust of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is that a source's reliability is to be judged in context to the claim that is sourced from it. We don't source facts about people from forums, we don't source scientific studies from forums, but we do source the contents of a post to a forum to that post. That is what is being sourced here, the contents of the post. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia which do this. The most important part of Wikipedia:Verifiability is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It is not an exceptional claim that the idea for the name of a group of fans who met on the internet would be suggested on an internet forum, so it doesn't need to be sourced to a site of exceptional reliability. I hope that clarifies for you. Hiding T 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, however in this case I do not think that logic applies. I will go through the claims individually.

1)The nickname for fans of the Firefly series was floated initially on the Official Firefly Forum on 4th October 2002

The forum page shows that there was indeed a discussion about the name on the 4th October however it does not give any kind of verifiable evidence that this was the origin of the term.

2)The nickname spread to other fansites from the forum

This isn't really content either and only one example doesn't show spread to multiple fansites.

3)The nickname was adopted by Joss Whedon

This is not in the content of the forum, this is a claim made by the forum - which as you said should not be included.

All the sources really show is that the term was discussed (not even first discussed) on a Firefly forum in October 2002. This information doesn't seem particularly important. [[Guest9999 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]]

• • • See, now you're basing your argument on the right part of policy in the right way. Hiding T 21:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but I learned about the term "browncoat" from seeing the Firefly series. It is being mentioned as a group denomination by actors on screen IN the series itself. Which, by the way, is also clearly noted in the firefly wiki. http://www.fireflywiki.org/ All this dubbing on linking to forums is not even necessary, 195.64.95.116 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, in 2002 I was a poster on the official boards for the show, and there was a discussion about what fans should be called. I suggested that we be called whatever Mal's side was called during the war, and the next poster said that they were the "brown coats." There were maybe a couple of subsequent posts that approved of the idea, but shortly thereafter the show's blogger Kelly started calling fans that. I have looked through the boards and have found no earlier post suggesting that fans be called browncoats. In my early days on Wikipedia I posted the above information with links to the board. But neither that posting nor I qualify as reliable sources, so I think it's rightfully been taken down. I felt bad at first, but I've gotten over it. If you want to see the board post though, there's a link on my user page. --Boradis (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article notable?

Is this fan group really notable? Besides the protest to FOX, I can see nothing that would make it seem notable. Wouldn't this be better merged into Firefly (TV series)? Captain panda 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We just went over that and the answer was yes. There's a lot of rationale about this in the discussion. The reason you're not seeing much is that, apparently, it was felt that the accomplishments of the group were presented in the wrong way and the article is a sixth of its former size. No doubt it should be expanded again. --Kizor 12:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious that this supposed group has had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article.  Skomorokh  06:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They (okay, we) are much more active and evident at science fiction conventions and the like than fans of many purportedly science-fictional shows which lasted far longer; and their role in the creation of the film Serenity is I believe unique, given the traditional Hollywood disdain for fans in general. Whedon's friendly attitude towards browncoats is by no means unique (the producers of Beauty and the Beast, for example, cherished and cultivated their "Helpers"); but the whole fan phenomenon chronicled in Done the Impossible and elsewhere is sui generis (at least, since the original "Save Star Trek" movement). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Serenity (film)?

There is very little information on this page. Maybe it would be more appropriate as a sub section of the Serenity film seeing as that seems to be the only claim to notability the term has. 110.32.1.105 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Browncoats existed long before the film; indeed, it is only because of them that the film came into existence. Even if you accepted an argument that the movement is non-notable, the film article would be grossly inappropriate as a place into which the information would be merged. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem optimal to have an article here that has less prose than Firefly_(TV_series)#Fandom. I wonder if, given all the different instantiations of the Firefly universe (TV show, film, comics, RPG), there might be a scope for a Firefly franchise or Firefly (series) article (see The Matrix (series)) which could neatly incorporate a comprehensive section on the fandom?  Skomorokh  15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Article scope

This article can't tell if it's about the Browncoat faction in the fictional universe or Firefly fandom. I would submit that the latter is much more notable and thus a more appropriate subject for the article. It's appropriate to mention the in-universe Browncoats were the inspiration for the fan epithet, but otherwise, Trekkie should be our model here. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but disagree. Trekkie was a term developed outside of the series, Browncoast developed within it and was adopted by the fans - as explained in th article. The scope, therefore, needs to cover the whole related use of the term as explained simply and neatly in the opening paragraph. Dividing it serves no purpose, other than to weaken it and undermine the arguments used to retain it at afd. DiverScout (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)